A blog featuring student and teacher work from Glenbrook North High School Business Classes
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Treasury Department approves $5 billion for GMAC
Personally I am glad that they are getting this loan so they can stay in business, but will this work? If no one was buying their cars before why would they buy it now? I would hope that they will take a better approach with their cars then they did before if they want to stay in business because I dont think the government can keep bailing them out if it happens again.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Health Care That Puts a Computer on the Team
Friday, December 19, 2008
Cell Phones- How they got Started
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
NASCAR Merger
Since Petty retired in 1992, the team has been getting worse, and they haven't been to Victory Lane since 1999. They are talking about a merger with Gillett Evernham, which includes Kasey Kahne and Elliott Sadler. Teams are limited to four cars, and if the merger fails, Petty Enterprises may only have one car. Dale Earnhardt Inc. and Chip Ganassi Racing have already merged to stay comptetitve with stronger teams. Automakers' struggles in the economy worry NASCAR even more.
Former champion Bobby Labonte, who used to be part of Petty's team, said, "I can't remember a time when the sport's landscape looks as it does today," according to this article from The Chicago Tribune. It's sad and shocking that so many teams are struggling and that the economy is so drastically affecting sports.
Obama Is Named Time's Person of the Year
After just being elected president of the United States, Barack Obama is already getting much praise from important people. His impact on the US and the world has earned him the award 2008 Time Person of the Year. This could be not a surprise to many, but also could be a surprise to some. In my opinion he deserves this honor because the other candidates aren't as nearly strong and influential as Barack Obama. The runners-up were Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson, vice president nominee Sarah Palin, President of France Nicolas Sarkozy, and Olympics director Zhang Yimou. Barack Obama had clearly more impact on 2008 than these people because of how different a candidate he is. He strongly wants change for this country and this world. He realizes that we need to take baby steps to get to our ultimate goal of being a power house country again. Another reason why Obama is the right choice is being of how big of an impact it has on African-Americans and blacks in the world in general. It shows that this country can have a strong leader who is of a minority. The world is thrilled by this because he represents something new and fresh for the issues in our world. Overall though Barack Obama is without a doubt in my mind the Person of the Year and really starts off his campaign well. His leadership and the want to make this world better is why he deserves this honor.
Video Example
Courthouse and FedEx Bombing Conspirer Brought to Justice
What I cannot believe about this whole situation is that she believes she’s committed an act of vandalism. In no way would anyone in their right mind consider bombing a building let alone a government building. Another thing I found hard to understand was how her attorney got away with terming her inexcusable acts as “misguided vandalism”. This is terrorism. An explosion that causes debris to reach a distance of two blocks is in no way vandalism. Spray painting on signs is vandalism. There is not a fine line between the two. Finally, having admitted to working with others to create and plant the bombs, hopefully she will cooperate with the police and bring the other conspirers to justice.
Wal-Mart Death
To conclude, i believe that this was a form of negligence, also known as a civil wrong. It's a tort that results in one person carelessly injuring another.
- Duty of care
- Breach of Duty
- Proximate cause
* UFCW Local 1500 is a labor union (group of people/workers that join together to reach a common goal in areas such as wages, hours, and working conditions). More general information can be found here.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Murderer Pardoned
As the United States National Bird, the bald eagle is protected against being hunted. Collier's actoins were considered to be illegal. After pleading guilty, he did not go to jail, but was put on probation for two years and was ordered to give up his weapons (which was devestating to the long time hunter). The worst part was that he was now considered a convicted felon.
Even worse was Collier's interactions with others in the community. "For a while, you think people kind of look at you different," Collier said to the Chicago Sun Times. But many in Collier's community felt that the punishment was too severe for the actions. One of his supporters was state representative Lanie Black. Black and other Collier supporters wrote many letters asking for a pardon. Several months ago, U.S. Attorney Catherine Hanaway responded, asking for the full story. On November 24, 2008, Collier was officially pardoned by President Bush. He was one of only 171 pardons (14 that day) granted by Bush, the fewest of any president that served two terms that recently served. After hearing of the pardoning, Collier "almost broke into tears." He was extatic to hear he was forgiven for a mistake he will surely never make again.
To me, it was illogical that Collier was ever even convicted of anyting. It was negligent, that's true. But honestly, how could he predict the damage that he caused? It was clear that his intentions were different than his results and the fact that he was convicted was very strange. Another strange thing was the pardonees that Bush chose. Generally harder on environmental criminals, Bush is usually hostile towards the environmental situations. He also pardoned a felon convicted of dumping hazardous materials. This man also only received prohibation, which is generally considered a light penalty for a president to pardon. I don't necessarily agree with the label that was placed on the pardoned convicts. For them, their lives have been restored for mistakes that I am sure they will never make again. To me, these were necessary pardons that made guilty-consciences feel better.
Targets Big Mistake
As the story goes, Cantrell was a customer at a local Target when she went to pay for her merchandise with a $100 bill. The employees working their shifts questioned the authenticity of the bill. The question in review was about how the bill was a 1974 series bill, allegedly. An email was then produced and sent to a group called the Carolina Organized Retail Theft Task Force by a Target employee. The content in the email was that Cantrell tried to use a contrerfeit bill and that she had shoplifted. This email was sent to 31 members of the group. These members included local, state, and federal enforcements, mails, department stores to grocery stores and home-improvement stores.
Cantrell then filed a complaint to the courts. She complained that Target's emails were "wrongdoings." Target claims that the email was sent only to another loss-prevention worker at another local department store. The emails led the US Secret Service to question Cantrell while she was at work at a Belk's department store in Greenville. They reviewed the bill (an old 1974 series bill) and concluded that she performed no wrongdoings.
The case went to court, where the jury awarded Cantrell $100,000 in damages and punished Target with a $3 million fine to be paid to Cantrell.
My opinion on the entire situation is that Target made an elementary mistake and should suffer the losses that they incurred. First off, the single most important thing about being in a business in which selling is the key, customer service is crucial. Falsely accusing a woman of stealing is about as wrong as could be. Not only was it wrong to make the accusation, but it was even more wrong to send emails to other stores and enforcement agencies alerting them of a "shoplifter." This defamation is going to cost a very popular company a lot of money and very poor publicity. When I personally worked in a store, the first thing I was taught was that the customer is always right. Never assume anything about the customer that you are not 100% sure of. These important lessons were not instilled into the Target employees. Now, the company is going to have to recover from their losses.
The Global Gag rule
Probably 3/4 of our school population doesn't even know what the the global gag rule is, even though it causes suffering to thousands of victims a year. African countries are the worst hit. Some countries that are negatively affected include Kenya, Ghana, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Uganda.
The global gag rule ensures that "no U.S. family planning assistance can be provided to foreign NGOs that use funding from any other source to: perform abortions in cases other than a threat to the woman's life, rape or incest; provide counseling and referral for abortion; or lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country" (actual definition). In other words, a family planning assistance program/clinic can't give ANY form of assistance that supports abortion. The clinic can't even MENTION the word abortion. That is why the law was named the "gag rule" because it literally "gags" family planning clinics from even talking about abortion. It was re-implemented by George W. Bush on his first day of office in January 2001.
This law is responsible for many deaths a year. Even though the law was designed to decrease the frequency of abortions, it has skyrocketed the number of unsafe abortions. Women are defaulting to unsafe methods and performing abortions on THEMSELVES because clinics won't help them out. Some medical workers calculate that the death toll so far is in the thousands. This law is also arguably the root cause of overpopulation in indigenous populations. Women and men alike are not educated on safe-sex practices. They don't use condoms, take birth pills, or utilize any other birth control mechanisms that the United States and other privileged countries have. Overpopulation is causing a multitude of problems such as pollution and environmental destruction. For instance, many citizens have to cut down forests to create room for people to live in. Furthermore, overpopulation creates energy shortages and Africans have to cut down trees to have firewood to generate heat and light.
--- That is a picture of an African woman carrying firewood. Some may wonder why these clinics even abide by this rule. If clinics are supposed to help citizens, why would they harm them by not providing the needed assistance? The answer is money. The rule also mandates that the clinics who don't abide by this rule will lose all the funding they receive from the USAID (United States Agency For International Development). If clinics fail to abide by this rule, they lose every single penny they receive from the United States. Without the funding, they can't operate or function cohesively because they need money to pay for workers and medical supplies. These clinics are placed in an awful position because whether or not they decide to abide by the rule, deaths become an inevitable result (either from the patient dying because she couldn't receive proper abortion services or from patients not receiving proper aid because clinics don't have money).
Other international donors have attempted to fill in the monetary gap. These donors include France, Great Britain, and even Cuba. Some multilateral institutions that have given some money are the European Union, the United Nations Children's Fund, and the World Health Organization. The largest donor of African health assistance so far has been France, who channels a lot of assistance through UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund). However, the money is directed towards helping children with HIV/AIDS, not abortion services. A lot of countries are hesitant to provide money for abortion services because they realize that the United States is adamantly against abortion and doesn't want to hurt ties by creating tension with one of the world's biggest superpowers. France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy has been especially committed to developing a strong relationship with the United States, and he would not detriment the relationship by doing something the United States would not want.
Some, however, resent the United States for imposing such an inhumane law against those who have no resources or means to retaliate. There has been no clear justification provided for this action. It just seems like Bush is trying to impose his own Christian ideals without any justification. Just because believes abortion shouldn't be allowed, why should people have to suffer? Why should we risk lives just to prove a point? AND WHY DO WE HAVE TO IMPOSE SUCH AN AWFUL RULE ON THOSE WHO DON'T EVEN HAVE THE RESOURCES TO FIGHT BACK? These questions have never been answered.
It's time for change, and thankfully Barack Obama is ready to make that change. He has promised to repeal this law and increase family planning assistance to indigenous countries. This change is change for the better. Think about how the negatively the United States would be impacted if abortion was illegal. Better yet, think about how that would affect our school. Those who are sexually active won't have any means to protect themselves from getting pregnant or sexually transmitted diseases because contraceptives might be banned as well. Then, when girls do get pregnant, they won't have the ability to get an abortion. It's time for the Bush administration to be, well, gagged.
Here's a video to sum it all up --- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4wrmweSdGg
---JUST IN CASE.
911 is for emergencies only!
Another issue with 911 is people calling for non emergencies. This is an example of a woman calling 911 from Burger King because she received the wrong order.
These types of calls are taking up emergency phone lines, and could be preventing a serious call from getting through. These calls cost tax payers millions of dollars. Here are a bunch of people calling 911 who obviously do not know the meaning of an emergency:
Over 45 percent of the more than 8 million cell phone calls to 911 each year are for non-emergencies. Sometimes it could go up to 80 percent! Don Aaron, a spokesman for the Nashville Metro police, said it’s called “joyriding.” “It’s a joy call to 911,” Aaron said. “What they don’t understand is that the call takers at 911 take these calls very seriously. The police department takes them very seriously.”
While looking into non emergency 911 calls I came across an article talking about how people call 911 for medical advice! They say they do not need an ambulance yet, but they ask what should they do? Police believe people are trying to avoid costly medical bills due to lack of health insurance. Unfortunately 911 does not give out medical advice, so all those cheap people will have to pay their medical bills.
There are also people who call because they are not sure whether their situation would be considered an emergency. This blog I found is talking about this issue. The blogger talks about how people call 911 to much for little things. They also talk about how when someone calls 911, they do not think of the consequences that come with it. Most people do not know that it is illegal to call 911 for a non- emergency. I found another blog by a woman named, Michele Ellson. She talked about how where she lives, they are going to start charging everyone for these calls and hopefully it will get the message across to people, and the number of these outrageous calls will decrease.
I think this whole issues is ridiculous. Why would anyone call 911 for a non-emergency? Whenever i need police assistance I always calls the non-emergency number. When I was little I learned how serious 911 was and how it should only be used for real emergencies. I used to randomly call 911 and hang up when I was really little because I thought it was funny. A policeman had to come to my house and explain to me the dangers of making those kind of calls. Anyone who makes unnecessary calls to 911 needs some serious intervention.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Walmart takes brain damaged woman's money
Debbie Shank's life changed when she got into a car accident. When a semi-truck smashed into the side of Debbie's mini van she was changed forever. Although she can remember things before the accident, she no longer has any short term memory. Before the accident Debbie was one of Walmart's employees, stocking shelves. While she was working there she signed up for the health and benefits plan so her and her family were covered. The trucking company gave her over $400,000 to cover medical bills. Suddenly that would be taken all away, what Debbie didn't real in the plan was that if any employee collected money from and injury walmart was entitled to that money. Because Walmart is taking that money, the Shanks are financially struggling to overcome this tragedy. Debbie's husband Jim even had to devorice Debbie last year so that she would get more money from medicaid. When walmart took the Shanks to court they won. Now, Jim Shank is trying to take this to the supreme court.I think that considering walmart made billions of dollars lat year, they could let the shanks keep money. They obviously need this money much more then the huge company. I understand that walmart are fully in their rights to this money, but they could have made special circumstances. This blog shows a video of this story by CNN. $400,000 could help the Shanks a lot more than the billions that walmart raked in every year.
Lisa Madigan wants Supreme Court to Oust Blagojevich
On December 11th, 2008, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was charged with attempting to sell a senate seat. President elect Barack Obama left his senate seat in attempt at the white house, and now Governor Blajogevich was going to give the seat to the highest bidder. Now, Lisa Madigan has called on the Illinois Supreme court to temporarily remove Blagojevich from office. He would still have the power to pick the senator, even though he is formerly charged. Blagojevich has no intentions of resigning, and the Illinois Supreme court can remove him from power if they vote for it.
There are two sides to this issue:
They should vote him out- YES, it is imperative that he is to be stripped of power immediately. We cannot let any more corruption into our government, and if he does appoint a new senator, we can assume that that senator will be as corrupt as Mr. Blagojevich. The Illinois supreme court has the power, and they should temporarily remove him of power.
They should NOT vote him out- YES, he is innocent until proven guilty. According to him, he has nothing to hide. We can not just go ousting government officials until they have been tried in a court of law. He has been charged, not found guilty. We MUST remember this.
After viewing both sides of this heated debate, it is honestly, and finally, up to the Illinois Supreme Court to decide what to do with him. You can either temporarily remove him of power, or you can let him be until he is found guilty. Either decision has reprocussions.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Children Protection From Online Exploitation
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Final Fantasy sparks New Law in Illinois
Final Fantasy Sparks New Law in Illinois
Alex Edward's, son of a Illinois politician, tried to cancel his subscription of a online game called Final Fantasy XI. After getting bored of this online game Alex proceeded to try and cancel his subscription. Except in the process of canceling his subscription, he found how hard it was. No phone number for consumer service was easily found but luckily his parents final got the number from their credit card statements. After holding for a hour and a half on hold before some one answered the phone.
This picture shows the lag of customer service.
This has led to the proposal of he new Illinois state law that forces online gaming service providers to have a simple way for consumers to cancel their services online, without the need to mail a form or contact customer service over a phone line. Also the company most provide instructions on how to cancel the online subscription. If a online company fails to give an easy cancellation then they will be
Picture of game that Alex played
There have been many discussions about this new law, and many have said that they to had trouble canceling this game or another online game. They bloggers say that this is a big step for online gaming experience. Many other bloggers are now protesting that this new law should be nationally recognized and expanded to incorporate companies like XM, Rhapsody, and all other online subscriptions.
"I Believe" License Plates Create Controversy
Friday, December 12, 2008
Vermont Man: Cheap and Proud of It
He's a man known by many nicknames as the cheapest man in America. Vermont's Roy Haynes is 55 years old, he has no debt, no mortgage and no car payments. He doesn't have a real job, but he earns about $15,000 a year. Even Haynes marriage was cheap. The entire wedding cost $70, and he stopped by McDonald's on the way home. The neighbors threw rice at him after the serimony so, Haynes' swept it up and cooked it for dinner. Roy is also some kind romantic guy he would bring a nice bouquet of roses from funeral home after they were discarded. It's a rare occasion when Haynes actually spends money for food. Haynes, the best things in life are free
"I can only go to the same place twice -- the first time to eat, the second time to apologize." Said Lisa Roy wife.
"He sees that there's a leftover at somebody else's table he'll ask and want to take that food home," Lisa Haynes said. "Sometimes I'd like to kill him when he takes home other people's food."
">
Online Advertisement Law
http://www.business.gov/guides/advertising/online/
We all probably have heard about advertisement law, but even if some of you haven't it still sounds pretty clear. All ads go through a big process, and must be based on a standard criteria. For example, the company os a business which provides the advertisement should be responsible for the content. The advertisement should not use discrimination and so on.There is also a federal company which controls all advertisements in the media.
But what about the Online Advertisement? How can government control it's content and verify the information in ads? There was also an old cartoon in the New Yorker, which showed two dogs in front of a computer, and had the caption "On the Internet, Nobody Knows You're a Dog." The inherent anonymity of the Internet has fostered a number of shady advertising and marketing practices, such as e-mail spam. That is why over the last couple of years, federal and state governments have passed additional advertising laws that protect consumer privacy. These ensure fair and truthful advertising practices online. So, if you plan to advertise online -whether you're buying ads on search engines or direct marketing through e-mail - you'll need to understand some basic rules.
Dot Com Disclosures : Information about Online Advertising
This fact describes information businesses should consider as they develop online ads to ensure that they comply with the law.
CAN-SPAM Act : Requirements for Businesses.
This acs establishes requirements for those who send commercial email, spells out penalties for spammers and companies whose products are advertised in spam if they violate the law, and gives consumers the right to ask e-mailers to stop spamming them. Commercial e-mail messages must include notice that the message is an advertisement or solicitation, an opt-out notice, and a valid postal address of the sender. CAN-SPAM also prohibits falsification of transmission information and deceptive subject headings. The Act creates criminal prohibitions against those who knowingly transmit spam through others' computers without authorization. Also, the Federal Trade Commission may pursue individuals who knowingly hire others to send deceptive spam.
"Remove Me" Responses and Responsibilities
Claims that you make in any advertisement for your products or services, including those sent by email, must be truthful. This means that you must honor any promises you make to remove consumers from email mailing lists.
And the main idea, which seems very important to me, is that if you believe that you've been a victim of deceptive advertising, you might be tempted to take the company or individual that wronged you to court.
DUI'S
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The Fall of Plaxico Burress
On November 29th New York Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress accidentally shot him self in the leg while at a night club. Burress now faces charges of criminal possession of a weapon, a charge he pleaded not guilty to. Now the question is what happens to Burress. Well, the Giants suspended him and put him on the injured reserve list for the rest of the season. Burress is now demanding the remainder of his contract and other things that were guaranteed to him. Now from a legal stand point there are many things that must come into play. But from a personally stand point, I don’t care. Burress should be given nothing. This man makes millions of dollars a year and he decided to carry a hand gun, which is already illegal, and then shoots himself. He shouldn’t be given anything just based on pure stupidity. He broke many laws and many contracts but the consensus of most other bloggers is; give him nothing! This I could not agree more with. Release him from your team and give him nothing. Let the law and police deal with this incident
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Limewire law
Limewire is a program that you are able to share files over the internet, to actually play them on your computer. File-sharing however is ILLEGAL, so for that matter limewire is too.
http://www.computerforum.com/50220-limewire-illegal.html
Limewire is a huge problem to the music industry because with limewire you can get almost every song in the world. Who needs albums and other expensive cd's when you can download music fast and easy, and then transfer it on ur iPod all for free.
http://news.cnet.com/RIAA-settles-with-12-year-old-girl/2100-1027_3-5073717.html
In New York 2003, a 12 year old girl was caught sharing files off limewire. She was going to be charged a lot of money for the amount of music that was tranfered from peer-to-peer. They dropped the charge to being only $2000 and dropped the case.
I think that this law is stupid because no matter what people are still going to use it, police can't go around to every single house that has it and arrest them. For one thing it is easy to just uninstall the program, and it would be a waste of time for the cop. Also if the person is caught the charge is way to high, a 12 year old girl being charged $2000! That's crazy. I think this law should be dropped, the only thing is that the music industry would just fall.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Michael Jackson's Trial
Steve Gordon Talks About Napster Lawsuit
How did people respond to Napster's lawsuit?
The public had mixed opinions about Napster being sued by Sony. Peter Fox, the kid with the backpack above, supported Napster file-sharing networks allowing free downloads whereas this blogger responded that they agreed with Sony suing napster, but they thought the money should only go to artists instead of the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America). Why they think money should go to only artists facinates me. The companies representing the artists are the ones suing Napster. Therefore, they need to take a percentage of the money earned from the lawsuit in order to use it as a remedy to repair the losses they suffered from Napster allowing free file-sharing of their copyrighted songs. Then the recording industries will distribute what is left to the artists. Everyone needs to make a profit somehow, even the companies that help artists get discovered.
This video explains the rise and fall of Napster:
Illinois Governor Blagojevich Arrested
Tribune Company Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
Last December, Sam Zell, Chairman of the Tribune Company, seemed confident of his situation when he bought the Tribune Company for 8.3 billion dollars . According to The Wall Street Journal, the Tribune Co. is now 12.9 billion dollars in debt with listed assets of 7.6 billion dollars, not including the Chicago Cubs. Zell hopes to sell the Cubs soon in order to gain some much needed money. Buyers, however, are hard to find in these tough economic times. The economy as well as the internet has played a major role in the downfall of newspapers. The Wall Street Journal reports that newspaper companies have been steadily losing money due to the availability of news online. Bloomberg News, a highly acclaimed news source, reports that Zell originally bought the Tribune Co. because he was “sick and tired of everybody talking about and commiserating about the end of newspapers.” Sam Zell has recently been forced to cut jobs and redesign The Chicago Tribune to make it smaller and cheaper to produce. Despite filing for bankruptcy, Zell is reassuring his employees, "We're doing everything we can to get from here to there. Our employees are not the reason our revenue is down the way it is" (The Wall Street Journal).Zell has done the right thing by filing for bankruptcy.
I don't believe his acquisition of the Tribune Co. attributed to its current financial state. The company, in general, has been in trouble for many years. Bloggers on the Law Blog at WSJ.com feel similarly to me. One blogger points out that the Tribune Co. did not have many other "attractive" buyers at the time Sam Zell bought the company. Another Blogger feels that without Zell, less jobs would be lost and less debt would be accumulated; but admits that the Tribune Co. would not be "fourishing" without Zell.
Below is a map of the wide territory the Tribune Company covers through its newspapers and television stations as of September 2008.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Rising Star or Future Convict, Gregg Gillis
Gregg Gillis, who goes by the stage name of Girl Talk, was a normal college student at
The issue with his music is that it is not original. He takes portions of other famous songs and puts them together to make his own songs, none of which is originally recorded by him. For example in his 2006 album, Night Ripper, he used more than 250 clips from different songs from 167 different artists. He put songs such as The Notorious B.I.G. song "Juicy" to a beat of Elton John's "Tiny Dancer". Although you may think it may be violating copyright laws, it is not. Many people say that he stays legal by following the fair use guidelines. He does this because his samples are very short and often sound very little like the actual song. Gillis stays legal by following these guidelines in every one of his songs.
I believe that he is a very talented musician. In fact Gillis has won numerous awards including #22 album of the year according to rolling stones magazine. Although he does not play an instrument he uses talent to put songs together with other tracks that end up sounding better than the originals. His music is something different in a time of a lot of music sounding the same. Musicians should be honored rather than angry that they are featured in his songs because it is not only giving there music more publicity but also a different sound for them that they may like try out some day. Girl Talk will be a big name in all of the clubs and will continue to appear all over the music scene. You can check his music and download his new album, Feed the Animals, on hismyspace or or listen to any song on you tube.
youtube can get you in trouble!!!
The pride and joy of so many teenagers was under scrutiny in 2007. Youtube/Google was sued by one of the largest businesses; Viacom. Viacom claimed that the users were copyrighting music and videos on Youtube. They claimed that is violates DMCA or Digital Millennium Copy write Act of 1998. Google refuted these remarks saying that they have "Google and You Tube respect the importance of intellectual property rights, and not only comply with their safe harbor obligations under the DMCA, but go well above and beyond what the law requires". Viacom claimed that 150,000 copy written clips were up on Youtube and have been viewed 1.5 billion times. This same thing has happened before. Napster had problems with this law also and they were shut down. As for Viacom-Youtube case it went to the Supreme Court. Youtube then put up notifications asking if you are violating there policy of copyright infringement. This is why today we have to check that little box at the end of certain documents. So that way they are not liable for what is copy written on there website. They even make it easy for someone to claim that something is copy written. They put it right on there website. They will never really go after every single person who ever used Youtube because the list is too big. As one blogger said "Face it, You tube is a library for video. People don't sue libraries." another person commented back "You tube engages in massive copyright infringement. They profit from people viewing copyrighted material. They deny any responsibility to the copyright holders. In their own way, they're as arrogant as the music thieves were." so obviously there are two sides to this matter. For use in schools the teachers should make sure that there students are not going over any time limits for music and videos.
I think that Youtube is one of the greatest eventions our nation has come upon. It has brought this generations of kids a lot closer and lets them see what other student in our nation and even in other nations are thinking. It allows students to pick up and learn from other people and do something that they enjoy. If a student wanted to pick up movie editing there are about 20 full videos on how to use each program. It brings us together with the hope that it will make us stronger. Whenever I am thinking of buying something I always go on Youtube to see if it is worth it. I am careful to not watch the videos the companies put up for advertisment. Yes, you can get introuble from using Youtube improperly but the chances of that are very slim. Youtube is a way for every person to express themselves.
other great writers on this topic are these people:
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Privacy on the Web
Most people don’t realize that once they click on an advertising banner from a third party, that advertiser will place a “cookie” on their computer web server. From this point on that company is allowed to track the web sites a person has visited and what their E-mail address is.
Companies try to justify this blatant invasion of our privacy, by saying they only use it to make sure all those ad banners that pop up correspond with things that are relevant to us. Like if we typed in things about travel, we would get more travel advertisements. Like any good company Google and others say they are planning on making policies to limit the information they collect, and ease the consumer's concerns. Unfortunatly it can be really tempting for this companies to use all the information at their disposal to do what TV and other forms of advertising cannot, target individual customers. I personally don't beleive they will make enough policies to truly make sure we are protected.
So far lawmakers have opted to allow the companies to regulate themselves, mostly because congress does not know what they can do to solve the problem. Although there has been some basic outlines for how companies must go about collecting information, it really only targets those third party advertisers and still leaves our personal lives open for companies to exploit.
Until lawmakers finish making a cohesive set of laws that protect your privacy their are many steps that you take to ensure at least a bit of confidentiality.
First Delete all the cookies you already have, I guarantee it’s a lot.
Second Increase your privacy to restrict what type of companies can collect cookies on you.
Third check out some sources on your own on how to protect yourself
Finally write to your congressman, as depressing as this sounds the federal government is the only source capable of protecting our privacy.
2010 Exposes True NBA Player Intentions
Well why is the 2010 season different? Money. With the media industry's capabilities today, NBA All Stars do not base their entire signing on the allotted money in a given contract; advertising and personal marketing help skyrocket players' earnings. After the 2009-2010 season, at least 19 high profile NBA Stars will be up for free agency. These players include LeBron James, Chris Bosh, Joe Johnson, Ray Allen, Joe Johnson, Dirk Nowitzki, Tracy McGrady, Shaq, Dwyane Wade, Michael Redd and many more. While these are all respected players on their current squads, huge contracts may not be enough to keep each of these players.
Expert analyst Jalen Rose expands on the future of LeBron James and Chris Bosh.
LeBron James is the biggest name of the 2010 free agent market. He is currently a star on the Cleveland Caveliers, with many huge sponsors including huge companies such as Nike and will make above $157 million. LeBron has already alluded to the fact that he "may" be interested in the New York Knicks as a free agent. I bet you're confused as to why the arguably highest profile NBA player would want to be on a depleted New York Knick squad, but think about it logically. Where in the United States can you get better marketing and advertising than the Big Apple? The only two cities who can even compete are Chicago and Los Angeles, but neither of these teams have anywhere near the Salary Cap space to take on the money LeBron wants in his contract.
This is just one of LeBrons huge advertisements that he was able to attain in Cleveland, commercials depicting "The LeBrons." Unfortunately, this seems to not be enough marketing to keep him satisfied in Cleveland.
To be honest this whole issue is a matter of X's and O's. These stars are looking for a place to thrive in today's less-than-average economy. Each player is looking for the best location for themselves to make money, not even win basketball games. It's kind of pathetic that the NBA has come down to this, and has sacrificed its' integrity to satisfy the top players needs. Nobody can convince me that it is better for the NBA to have great players on terrible NBA teams in high marketing locations, rather than great players on decent teams in average advertising places. I guess we'll see in 2010 when decisions are made. Hopefully there will be some players who value their experience and winning like the only days, and not just money.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Obama's Citizenship Up For Debate
Obama is not a natural born citizen, because his father was not a US citizen. His father was a British subject, and because of that Obama was born a subject of the Crown and later became a citizen of Kenya and Indonesia, when adopted by Lolo Sotoro. Even if he was born in Hawaii, and his mother was old enough to pass US citizenship on to him, he would still only be a citizen-not a natural born citizen. Natural born status must exist at the moment of birth. It can not be earned, or received at a later date, or by a retroactive law.
Knowing this, we are now being told that Obama is qualified? Yes, he may be a citizen, though I doubt it, but he was never a natural born citizen, and can not be President, if we honor the Constitution.
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
Obama's British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
The 14th Amendment does not confer natural born citizen status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a Citizen, and only if he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Obama was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. He was a Subject of the United Kingdom. A natural born citizen would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States.
So now that you know what I think, what do you think?